Apollo and war

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-05 11:37:35

The old way of doing things, the way which led to Apollo, didn't lead to any interplanetary commerce, it was a government spending program and it died when the taxpayer dollars stopped coming. I'm hopping that we can be a little wiser this time. I'm hopping that this time NASA will foster the conditions that lead to a private exploration and exploitation of the Solar System with NASA simply supplying the financial incentives instead of picking the winner ahead of time based on who can make the best power point presentation to NASA's top brass, and also who's facilities happen to be in the right Congressional districts.

I think private enterprise should assume some risks, NASA can mitigate some of these risks by presenting some financial incentives in the form of prizes awarded for missions accomplished. I know this has worked for small things, there is some question as to whether it would work for larger multibillion dollar projects, but lets try it out. We've already gone down the Apollo route, so lets spend the same amount of money, but differently this time. NASA present the objective and private enterprise figure out how. All private enterprise really needs is a reason to go. I'll bet a private return to the Moon and eventually Mars would be conducted much more efficiently than one involving the US Government and Congressmen and Senators saying how it is to be done.

cIclops · 2007-10-07 05:21:10

Apollo was a one off, an emergency response to a sudden threatening event by an enemy state. It was effectively a war response. Constellation is not Apollo. Constellation is the complete opposite, it's a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue exploration beyond LEO.

Commercial exploitation of the technologies and the opportunities they bring can only be realized by commercial organizations. Almost all of Constellation will be built by non government companies, they will benefit from the injection of so much development money. What becomes profitable will be done, what isn't won't. Today human access to LEO is barely profitable. For a long time Lunar surface access won't be profitable, Mars access even more so. Meanwhile the space program needs a huge injection of capital, capital that will generate enormous long term returns.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-07 11:05:31

Apollo was a one off, an emergency response to a sudden threatening event by an enemy state. It was effectively a war response. Constellation is not Apollo. Constellation is the complete opposite, it's a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue exploration beyond LEO.

We were't at war with the Soviet Union during Apollo. The next looming threat is China, it is a non democratic country that is growing faster than us. Are we content to be "number two" to a dictator? What does that say about Democracy being the form of government of the most advanced democracies in the World?

cIclops · 2007-10-07 11:13:18

We were't at war with the Soviet Union during Apollo. The next looming threat is China, it is a non democratic country that is growing faster than us. Are we content to be "number two" to a dictator? What does that say about Democracy being the form of government of the most advanced democracies in the World?

Errr Tom, besides Vietnam where the Soviets directly supplied war materials and combat pilots there was the COLD WAR ... ever heard of it?

Oops now I am way Offtopic, I'll move our posts soon

Commodore · 2007-10-07 17:34:41

Apollo was a one off, an emergency response to a sudden threatening event by an enemy state. It was effectively a war response. Constellation is not Apollo. Constellation is the complete opposite, it's a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue exploration beyond LEO.

Are you sure it's not a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue funneling cash to the constituents, and maintaining our foot in the door for potential military purposes?

I'm not saying that either of those goals are not a inevitable side effect and a national security necessity respectively, but I don't see a whole lot in the way of interest in exploration or the utilization of space for the betterment of mankind on the part of leaders and legislators (yes, I differentiate the two).

If they can't use it as a feather in their reelection cap, they don't care. Even Apollo, perhaps the best example of a rush program we will ever see, took 8 years. Thats too long for the average elected official.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-08 04:00:44

We were't at war with the Soviet Union during Apollo. The next looming threat is China, it is a non democratic country that is growing faster than us. Are we content to be "number two" to a dictator? What does that say about Democracy being the form of government of the most advanced democracies in the World?
Errr Tom, besides Vietnam where the Soviets directly supplied war materials and combat pilots there was the COLD WAR ... ever heard of it?
Oops now I am way Offtopic, I'll move our posts soon

Didn't the Apollo astronauts place a plaque on the Moon that said something like, "We came in peace for all Mankind"?
It didn't say, "We came here to defeat the Soviets."

Also for a war program, sending two astronauts at a time to the Moon makes a very small army.

An actual war between the USA and the Soviet Union would necessarily involve a direct clash of arms, and probably would have involved a nuclear exchange, but since that didn't happen, we can't actually say that the USA and the Soviets were officially at war. The USA and the Soviets were on the same side during World War II, and the Russians act as if we were enemies during that period, but being enemies implies that there were direct hostilities between our two countries but their weren't. Neigther the US or the Soviets ever declared war on each other, they came close a couple of times, but never stepped over the line into full scale warfare, and since that never happened, we can't properly call the Soviets enemies. We tolerated their support of our enemies that we did go to war with, we tollerated their support of terrorism, and their occasional assassinations of Americans, but we never did go to war. All the rhetoric at the time was that the Apollo Program was a peaceful civilian program of Manned Lunar Exploration, all the documents support this, so I say its wrong for later officials to contradict this and say that Apollo was a War program. And since we didn't have that excuse then, why should we have it now?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-08 04:11:41

Apollo was a one off, an emergency response to a sudden threatening event by an enemy state. It was effectively a war response. Constellation is not Apollo. Constellation is the complete opposite, it's a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue exploration beyond LEO.
Are you sure it's not a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue funneling cash to the constituents, and maintaining our foot in the door for potential military purposes?
I'm not saying that either of those goals are not a inevitable side effect and a national security necessity respectively, but I don't see a whole lot in the way of interest in exploration or the utilization of space for the betterment of mankind on the part of leaders and legislators (yes, I differentiate the two).
If they can't use it as a feather in their reelection cap, they don't care. Even Apollo, perhaps the best example of a rush program we will ever see, took 8 years. Thats too long for the average elected official.

The good politicians have something in mind for their country when they gain power, the bad ones don't care about their country, they will say or do anything to get into power and only want the perks and priveleges of the political office they hold and could care less about what they can do for their country should they succeed. Hillary Clinton, for example doesn't want to make history, she just wants power, and she will say or do anything to get it. I prefer politicians with principles, even If I don't agree with those principles, over those politicians who will pretend to have some principles to get you vote.

I think if this country is to have a future, we should go into space in a big way. Politicians who just want power and don't care about anything else are like pigeons that gather on the lawn and sidewalks and poop on everything, they are a nuisance and any political system where you have a fair chance of being elected by popular vote, will attract these pests, they are of no use to the country, only serve themselves, and the best thing one can do is expose these to the public, now if only the media wasn't do in bed with them. Sometimes the Media prefers political power over profits, I'd rather have media outfits that care only about profits to there company and not about slanting the news. We need more free enterprise in the Media, so they compete with each other and don't talk with one voice politically.

cIclops · 2007-10-09 07:24:08

Are you sure it's not a measured program to build the infrastructure to continue funneling cash to the constituents, and maintaining our foot in the door for potential military purposes?.

That's a deeply jaundiced view Commodore. Any government program can be accused of " funneling cash to the constituents", if that's its only purpose it would be massive fraud. No, it's a side effect. For some people it may well be their main justification for wanting a program, that seems to be more of a problem in the vast government social programs. Note that NASA only gets 0.6% of the US budget compared with over 20% for social security.

As to the military purpose of Constellation, well indirectly a tiny part of the work on the RS-68B cluster is being shared with the Air Force but other than that Constellation probably getting more from the military than it gives. Constellation is an open, public program which will generate benefits for everyone.

Commodore · 2007-10-09 08:25:39

That's a deeply jaundiced view Commodore.

Yeah, I like most Americans don't have a whole lot of confidence in those who redistribute our money.

I'm not saying that good can not come out of Constellation. I'm saying that when the very man who's charged with implementing it says that we're not taking it seriously enough to maintain technological supremacy, and that the Chinese are going to beat us to the Moon, you have to question the motives for those who claim to be supporting it.

Constellation can work. But at the present rate it will still fail at the most important goal, inspire.

cIclops · 2007-10-09 08:44:05

I'm saying that when the very man who's charged with implementing it says that we're not taking it seriously enough to maintain technological supremacy, and that the Chinese are going to beat us to the Moon, you have to question the motives for those who claim to be supporting it.

Yes that's right, Congress doesn't take the work NASA does seriously enough, if it did it would appropriate more funding. It's politics. Griffin's point was to make them aware that China is capable of getting to the Moon faster, and so is Russia.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-09 10:07:10

I'm saying that when the very man who's charged with implementing it says that we're not taking it seriously enough to maintain technological supremacy, and that the Chinese are going to beat us to the Moon, you have to question the motives for those who claim to be supporting it.
Yes that's right, Congress doesn't take the work NASA does seriously enough, if it did it would appropriate more funding. It's politics. Griffin's point was to make them aware that China is capable of getting to the Moon faster, and so is Russia.

I just don't like the words he chose, "If Americans are not going to like it, they will just have to 'not like it'." That's like saying, "Tough tookies you Americans, like it or lump it."

It would be better to say, "We can't allow this to happen, we need more money!" but instead we just get a shrug of the shoulder and him saying, "Well if the Chinese beat us, so what? We're not in a race, we are technically superior and could beat them if we wanted to, but why should we?" And later when Chinese astronauts are actually walking on the Moon and planting their red flag in the lunar soil, some NASA Administrator will say, "Oh yes, we could have beaten them, we are technically superior, you bet, but its just that we didn't feel like it and oh racing with the Chinese is so immature and we've got betting things to do." The Chinese government will say, "Oh yeah riight! trying to rationalize failure! We beat you dumb Americans cause your stupid!" Its kind of like the prize fighter who loses a fight and says, he just didn't feel like beating his victoroius opponent to a pulp that day, he didn't want his blood all over his gloves so he took it easy and let him win. Yeah, sure the World will believe we could have beaten the Chinese if we say we could have beaten the Chinese, we can look all superior if we want to, but the truth is we would have been beaten by the Chinese and the World will take the simplest explaination for that, namely that the Chinese have surpassed the United States, if we are going to sit down and let that happen its our own fault, and we'd be letting down the rest of the Western World too. Perhaps some other western countries aought to contribute more than just a token amount to say they "participated". The ability is question is to get things in space, not just to build Space Station modules that fit aboard the Shuttle.

cIclops · 2007-10-09 10:23:08

As of today the CNSA have said nothing about plans for a human Lunar mission. Heck they've only had two manned spaceflights. Yes Griffin has a way with words, blunt and direct .. to paraphrase .. if the American people are not willing to sufficiently fund NASA and China gets to the moon first, the responsibility will be theirs.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-09 13:03:14

If you were China and you wanted to get to the Moon before the Americans, what would you do? Would you "yell from the highest hilltop" and announce to the World that China is going to land men on the Moon and risk alarming the American public and get that Juggernaught going, or would you try not to unduly alarm them, and begin working on larger rockets in secret? You see if you alarm the United States too early, they may spend the extra money it takes an beat you, but if you catch them by surprise, then you have a fair shot.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-10-05 11:37:35

Re: Apollo and war

#2 2007-10-07 05:21:10

Re: Apollo and war

#3 2007-10-07 11:05:31

Re: Apollo and war

#4 2007-10-07 11:13:18

Re: Apollo and war

#5 2007-10-07 17:34:41

Re: Apollo and war

#6 2007-10-08 04:00:44

Re: Apollo and war

#7 2007-10-08 04:11:41

Re: Apollo and war

#8 2007-10-09 07:24:08

Re: Apollo and war

#9 2007-10-09 08:25:39

Re: Apollo and war

#10 2007-10-09 08:44:05

Re: Apollo and war

#11 2007-10-09 10:07:10

Re: Apollo and war

#12 2007-10-09 10:23:08

Re: Apollo and war

#13 2007-10-09 13:03:14

Re: Apollo and war

Board footer